disposed to sustain it in the first instance, he
could not possibly vote for it in the modified form
it had now assumed, if he understood the lan-
guage of the amendment, the effect of it would
be that if there should he half a dozen persons
holding the stock of the State of Maryland, due
in the year 1890, and who refused, before that
time, to sell oat to the agent of the State, who
had charge of the sinking fund, not one dollar of
the half million of money which we might be re-
ceiving annually for twenty or twenty-five years,
could be appropriated or used for any purpose,
until this handful of obstinate stock-holders should
be paid. It seemed to him that the Convention
should not adopt any such constitutional provi-
sion. It might have the effect of placing beyond the
control of the Legislature, some ten or fifteen
millions of dollars, which they could not touch.
Although the State might have money enough
before the years '63 or 4, to pay off every dollar of
debt which she owed, and was willing to pay it,
yet from that time to the year 1890, the money
must remain in the treasury idle and useless,
and could not be appropriated to any purpose
whatsoever If there was any meaning in language,
this was the meaning of the amendment. He
must, therefore, vote against it. Gentlemen
would perceive, that it placed the subject in a
very different point of view from that in which
it stood under the amendment of the gentleman
from Harford, (Mr. McHenry.) it would be un-
reasonable thus to tie up the hands of the Legis-
lature.
He, (Mr. D.,) was in favor of the substitute of
the gentleman from Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield.)
As he. (Mr. D.,) understood that proposition,
the money, after the payment of the debt, might
be appropriated, and he could readily suppose a
case, where such an appropriation might be re-
quisite and proper. He instanced the case of the
opening of the channel of a river, &c.
He thought that the Convention was disposed
to show, by its action, an entire want of confi-
dence in the Legislature, to regard them as pos-
sessed neither of intelligence, patriotism, nor
honesty, and to leave them the power to do noth-
ing, either fur good or for evil.
Mr, BROWN remarked that the discussion on
this question had, in his judgment, lasted long
enough. And he gave notice that hereafter, on
all occasions, when he thought the discussion had
been ample, he should test the sense of the Con-
vention, as he now did, on the demand for the
previous question.
The question "will the Convention second the
demand for the previous question," was then
taken, and decided in the negative.
So there was not a second,
The question then recurred on the amendment
as amended.
Mr. SPENCER said, that however great his re-
spect might be for the ability of the distinguished
gentleman from Anne Arundel, (Mr. Dorsey,)
who had made the criticism on his, (Mr S.'s,)
amendment, as accepted by the gentleman from
Harford, he could not subscribe to the correct-
ness of that gentleman's construction. He, (Mr,
S.) held that it embodied no such proposition as |
the gentleman had indicated. He should not,
however, discuss it. He held that his amend-
ment looked to the payment of the public debt,
and allowed the Legislature to appropriate money
in any way, either by the creation of a sinking-
fund or by any other process, looking to the
extinguishment of the debt. But it restricted the
Legislature from appropriating the revenues for
any other purpose.
Inasmuch, however, as there was a diversity of
opinion on the subject, he would, in order to re-
lieve the question from all embarrassment offer a
modification of his proposition which would dis-
pose of the objection, and which his friend from
Harford had agreed to accept.
As regarded the substitute of his friend
from Somerset, (Mr. Crisfield,) he, (Mr. S.)
was opposed to it for several reasons. In the
first place, it invited the State to engage in these
works of internal improvement; and he, (Mr. S.,)
was not willing to put into the hands of the Le-
gislature any power of that character. In the
second place, he was opposed to it; inasmuch as
the Legislature would possess the discretion, un-
der the amendment as it now stood, to appropri-
ate money for public schools.
Mr. MCHENRY moved to amend the amend-
ment by adding at the end thereof, the following:
"Or the sinking fund shall be equal to the
amount of the outstanding debt."
The amendment was agreed to.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the substitute of Mr. CRISFIELD.
Mr. BROWN asked the yeas and nays, which
were ordered, and being taken, resulted as follows;
Affirmative —Messrs. Ricaud, Lee, Chambers
of Kent, Mitchell, Donaldson, Dorsey. Wells,
Randall, Kent, Sellman, Crisfield, Sprigg, Mc-
Cubbin, and Davis—14.
Negative—Messrs. Chapman, Pres't., Blakis-
tone, Dent, Hopewell, Weems, Dalrymple,
Bond, Sollers, Jenifer, Bell, Welch, Ridgely,
Lloyd, Colston, Dashiell, Hicks, Hodson, Golds-
borough, Eccleston, Chambers of Cecil, McCul-
lough, Miller, Bowie, Bowling. Spencer, Grason,
George, McMaster, Fooks, Thomas, Shriver,
Gaither, Annan, Sappington, Stephenson, Mc-
Henry, Magraw, Thawley, Hardcastle, Gwinn,
Sherwood of Baltimore city, Presstman, Ware,
Schley, Fiery, Neill, John Newcomer, Michael
Newcomer, Weber, Hollyday, Slicer, Parke,
Ege, Cockey, and Brown—55.
So the substitute was rejected.
The question then recurred on the adoption of
the amendment as amended, and it was decided
in the affirmative.
So the amendment as amended, was adopted.
The question then recurred on the amendment
of Mr. GEORGE, as the twenty-first section of the
report, as amended, and was decided in the af-
firmative.
So the amendment of Mr. GEORGE, as amend-
ed, was adopted.
Mr. BLAKISTONE then moved to amend said re-
port by inserting as an additional section, the fol-
lowing : |
